Talk:Americablog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-12. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
|
Userbox
|
Contents |
[edit] Discussion
With an alexa ranking over 50K, this website doesn't seem overly notable. However the article asserts widespread media coverage. Perhaps citing some sources for this would help establish why this website is important. Friday (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The social networking rank of #36 is much more significant than the Alexa rank which is probably low because the blog is hosted on blogspot and alexa does not break out the individual blogspot traffic, take a look at the americablog.blogspot.com traffic. Americablog is regularly quoted on CNN and other mainstream media outlets. --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
More important than the social network rank is the fact that Americablog outed Ari Fleicher's suspiciously convenient shill as a homosexual prostitute. That is probably the most controversial blog incident to date, both the fact that there was a fake news outlet in the WH press corps and the fact that it was staffed by a guy advertising his services as a gay prostiutute. It is probably also the most significant story that originated from original blog reporting to date. The Drudge/Lewinsky thing was to pre-empt Isikof at Time, the CBS memogate thing was a comentary on CBS reporting (and the blogosphere mostly failed to ask the question of provenance which was the real issue). --Gorgonzilla 12:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Actually, the Web site outed Jeff Gannon, not Ari Fleischer
Ari Fleischer was the former White House press secretary. Americablolg uncovered that Republican White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) had worked as a prostitute, not Ari Fleischer. PPmana 03:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heads up, someone is editing this profile to take revenge on the blog
Someone has been posting "updates" to this blog profile, and the blogger's personal profile John Aravosis, over the past few days simply because they're ticked at the blogger for something that happened two days ago. The person already got a 'weasel word' warning for his/her posts on both entries. The person is now deleting entire sourced sections of both wiki entries, and replacing the deleted sections with biased unsourced paragraphs about this supposed incident. I've been trying to keep track of their edits, but now they're demanding I be banned for doing so. If you can, please keep an eye on these two profiles. Obviously, don't believe me - just click through the "history" and you'll see what's going on - compare the revisions and do what you do best, keep things fair. Thanks. PPmana 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- My paragraphs predate additions by PPmana (who deleted my text), which he claims I am "replacing." This guy is a total liar. Bds yahoo 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as I stated already, everyone is welcome to visit the history of this entry and read for themselves what Bbds Yahoo has been writing and what I have been writing, and judge for yourselves who is playing games and who is adding serious content. As for your paragraphs predating mine, yes, they do, and? You came to this person's wiki entries about him by name and about his blog with the desire to slur him for revenge over a post two days ago on his blog that you didn't like. I saw what you were doing and have been correcting your weasel word posts. Per se "corrections" come after the initial content is written. So, yes, your posts were before mine, and they're wrong, unsourced, biased, and personally motivated. Again, no one needs to take my or your word for it - they can read the history of the page and compare for themselves what you and I have written PPmana!
- PPmana, I agree to the latest revisions you have made. I think they are pretty evenhanded. Okay? So can we end this edit war? Bds yahoo 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the blog link that was reinserted as related posts and comments have been direclty sourced, and the actual commenters have been given voice. --zphyche 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Bds yahoo, I am responding to your question in the talk page on the John Aravosis article (14:15, 23 May 2006). For both articles I have noted that I deleted the blog link to Shakespeare's Sisters that you reinserted because the related posts and comments have been directly sourced, and the actual commenters have been given voice. I find it noteworthy that the Shakespeare sister link begins with a link to the newly created, low-traffic, "attack" blog, which is utterly, comprehensively biased. Furthermore, I believe the objections of commenters to the "big girl" blog post is quite narrow in focus, and personally, I do not find it worthy of inclusion in either article; however, it has been included, and the sources that have been provided tell the story directly. I do not believe that adding a link to the low-traffic Shakespeare's Sisters blog, which begins with a link to the very brand new, very vengeful site, adds to the Americablog or John Aravosis articles, other than to serve as a back-door approach for leading viewers to a brand new site designed with the intent to seek revenge. I find the attempt to use wiki as a means of promoting such a site both biased and inappropriate. I also find the issue far too narrow for inclusion at all, yet here it is. The story has been told, and links to the comments have been included. zphyche 16:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reliable sources
I'm concerned that the criticsm section is not well enough sourced; 'criticism' section seems to be sourced to a blog by someone who does not appear to be particularly significant or notable and to comments on the post. I don't think the criticism is significant unless it has been reported on by reliable external sources, for example newspapers or notable critics. -- Naerii 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- As no one has improved the sources, I am removing the section. -- Naerii 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
